Ammunition aside, the Textron rifle has a very complex feeding system, reminiscent of the G11's clockworks like feeding system. With too many moving parts, I can't see the Army fielding such a complex weapon system, for the ordinary soldier? Like the previous post said, the military has been trying to replace the M16/M4 since its inception and agree the military needs to upgrade the ammunition, to something in the 6mm envelope. Unfortunately, the limiting factor, to any government operation, has and always will be money!
02-02-2020, 11:48 PM
Heard the same from industry types re: the Textron gun's complexity. However, those same industry types often comment on how well it runs so....who knows.
It's a shame 6x45mm SAW (not the necked up .223) died. There's some fearless wildcatter's messin around with 6mm Hagar/FatRat/Grendel and all that stuff and it seems like a potential sweet spot for mag/ammo size, BC, bullet weight, recoil, etc. for a carbine and light-weight SAW/LMG. With all this talk of hopped up 6.8mm stuff, I think of the ICSR (the potential re-intro of 308 battle rifle) and the criticisms that idea (rightfully) received. In that...what's the point of all this heft, recoil if the average Joe can't a) get there without being a heat cas/spinal injury and b) not hit when he gets there due to lack of training.
The LR gun-gamers figured out quick, fast and in a hurry that 6.5mm ups hit probability over 30cal and their zingy little 6mm GayTiger's, Dasherbois and whatnots are flatter and lighter recoiling more so....barrel life be damned. The military is just taking a really funny approach to a very similar...and timeless (google "Project SALVO" and SPIW) problem we've never overcome for non-special operations. This is of course we're still thinking of fighting the last war as we tend to do...and long-range BC will matter.
02-03-2020, 02:18 AM
I remember reading an article in American Rifleman, many years ago, showing the history of the US Military, evaluating rifle cartridges. All the evaluations showed some form of the 6mm cartridge, being optimal for combat, and always passed over due to cost, politics, or old school thinking. Originally, the M1 Garand prototype, the T3, was designed for the .276 round and MacArther overruled that, due to the overstock of 30-06 ammunition. Whenever I read about the military looking into a different caliber, I think about all the 5.56mm ammunition, and the logistics of transitioning, to a new caliber. This time they seem more serious, due to the current war we've been fighting, and realistically see a change in caliber, during this decade.
02-03-2020, 02:36 AM
Yeah; google "Stanley Crist" and 6mm and you'll find he was a big 6mm fan.
Way back when...long after we dicked over the .280 Brit and shoved 7.62x51 down everyone's throat, the Brits did their own study and found that a 6.25mm in their 280 case was the "just right" flavor for a time.
However, I believe this was for penetrating Soviet helmets of the day @ 600m. That was later shelved for some necked-down 5.56 variant in 4.8mm.
02-03-2020, 05:33 AM
Even .280 could blow though just about any steel helmets out to 600 yards/meters back in 1950. And even that round was originally supposed to be in the 6.5-6.8mm realm until the British Army decided to use the same 7mm bullets as used in the 7x57mm Spanish Mauser round (a 7.92mm Mauser necked down for a 7mm bullet).
Even the 7.92x33mm round was originally supposed to be 7mm until German Army logistics said that a 8mm variant would be cheaper and easier to make.
Also, I do think that for the .30 guys that the M80A1 round is an answer, as its lighter bullet can be hurled faster for less recoil and because of the use of steel and copper to replace the bullet core, the bullet likely had to be made somewhat longer to add the weight (like the stillborn M855A1). And unlike the .277 Fury and the M855A1, the M80A1 can be used in existing rifles because it does what it does without the need to exceed SAMMI or CIP chamber pressure ratings. Which is also true of the 6.5 Creedmoor. The M855A1 is a phenomenal round for a .22 cal class intermediate rifle round, but just about no existing rifle in 5.56mm can use it without premature wear and tear because it was jacked up to 7.62mm NATO/.308 Win chamber pressures.
Also, I do believe that for a long time 6.5mm was seen as underpowered because because of the poor performance that the 6.5x50mm Arisaka had as a long range machine gun round, and the 6.5x52mm Carcano had as an all around infantry round. Granted, 6.5mm Arisaka wasn't optimal for use in medium machine guns, but it influenced the British's thinking on their contention of 6.5-7mm caliber for intermediate rifle rounds. 6.5mm Carcano just wasn't a very good round because of bullet design. In spite of everyone and their brother (aside from Austria-Hungary with their 8mm Steyr Mannlicher rifles) adopting spitzer and boattailed bullets before or during World War I, the Italians stuck with the round nose, straight-sided bullet for the 6.5 Carcano until the end of World War II. The 6.5mm-8mm spitzer and boattail bullets had a tendency to tumble and sometimes fragment in soft tissue, increasing stopping power and lethality without the need to use hollow point or soft point bullets (generally banned in international warfare for those who signed those elements of the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention treaties). 6.5mm Carcano was extremely stable in soft tissue and often could pass though and not do much damage unless it hit something vital.
6.5mm Arisaka, on the other hand, was found to be lethal as hell when fired out of Type 38 Arisaka rifles and even carbines because of how it's spitzer and boatailed bullets tumbled in soft tissue. That's why the British for a long time actually had a love affair with 6.5mm-7mm bullets and until the 4.85mm were unwilling to go much below 6.5mm.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I'm in agreement with those who think that a simpler caliber change is desirable over the US Army wanting to damn near reinvent the wheel. Not to mention that if you have a .308/7.62mm NATO rifle, all you need to do to convert it to 6.5mm Creedmoor is pretty much just a barrel change. FN have done it with the SCAR 17, and if the 7.62mm NATO version of the HK433 gets picked up by the German Army, they can also do that as well. Which I find that with the 433 to be interesting in itself, given that we've only seen the 5.56mm versions, but there's been a though since 2017 that it was designed to be a .308 rifle that was converted to 5.56mm just by changing the barrel, bolt and lower receiver, al la SCAR 17.